You should always pay very close attention to what Carl says. You will have
to pardon me if I find Carl's comments to be somewhat at odds with your
exegetical proposals in this post and previous posts on a somewhat related
topic.

Anyway, I am currently (in this thread) musing about the problem of trying
to define a semantic functional prototype for EK + genitive which could be
linked in some meaningful manner to EK CEIROS AUTHS in Rev 19:2c. I am a
little skeptical about any approach to semantics which implies that there is
a "central" or "core" semantic function which can be identified for a
constituent such as the pattern EK + genitive. The whole idea of "centers"
appears to be somewhat of a bugaboo in semantic theory. This is why I raised
the question. I am trying to "de-center" the center.

Clayton, please know that I also sincerely and seriously recommend
playing close attention to what Carl has commented as concerns the '' little
bags of color and semantic function and categorical labels we come up with
trying to explain the function pertaining to the genitive case. Quote, "I
think it is a fundamental mistake to suppose that they (semantic
categories ) are inherent in the Greek." Also...."I think that a fair
portion of what is called Greek Grammar by the Basics is provided to assist
people with their understanding " not " of the Greek, but of the target
language modes of expressing nuances of meaning....." which the Greek
doesn't distinguish." And ..." this genitive is not different from any other
genitive of one noun modifying another." And lastly..."This applies in
particular to "subjective and objective genitives, which don't constitute
defined categories in the Greek at all..."

Now I don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't pursue these patterns and
their perceived intersecting partnerships, however, I think to conceptualize
about it here on B-Greek is to perpetuate what Carl has, in my
estimation...." in my estimation "...nearly reached a point of pleading for
us not to do. In his comments I have heard the recommendation that we need
to get in touch with how the Greeks thought about matters such as this; then
we will be able to understand what is inherent in the Greek concerning the
genitive case.

Clayton....you state,

"Anyway, I am currently (in this thread) musing about the problem of trying
to define a semantic functional prototype for EK + genitive which could be
linked in some meaningful manner to EK CEIROS AUTHS in Rev 19:2c. "

In the following comment I am merely extrapolating...not trying to
"smart-alek"...

Clayton, I would offer that to understand the genitive case and what it
indicates is not a matter of bringing a cinderella shoe type semantic
functional prototypical categorical caliper from the outside and placing it
on the genitive and then after the measurement is made the result is
announced...." it's this one." Rather....we should start by going to the
inside of the noun in the genitive case and realize this noun, and what it
represents is about to communicate to us, the reality; that what it
is....has now become the characteristic...the very specification to the
substantive nearby. So first of all we need to discover...realize and
carefully consider "what" it is. That is, what in reality is being
represented by the noun in the genitive case.

We have at hand as per your paragraph above.....firstly, not EK +
Genitive....but EK the genitive. EK. EK is....coming out of. Coming out of.
Firstly there is about to become the specification not to a model of
functional prototype, but in Rev 19:2c to the servants that have been
indicated to have the characteristic .....AUTOU. Now John is about to inform
us they ( the servants who have the characteristic AUTOU also have gained
additional characteristics. The next is EK. They have been coming out. They
are coming out ones. I know for me as I exercise these genitives, already I
am not thinking about categories...I'm thinking of realities that are now
existing in these amazing servants. This, is what the Greek genitive case is
saying, this is how the Greek genitive case is working, it seems to me.

More transference of specification....CEIROS. I suggest to see how the
genitive case works.....don't go so fast. CEIROS. Hand. For there to be
specification given, there has to be reality existing. This genitive CEIROS
hand AUTHS her. This indicates that there really is this woman and she
really does have a hand that is AUTHS characterized by her. And what is
charateristic of a hand. It holds...it grips...it hangs on to. This all is
additional specification to be given to the servants. Not to determine
source or agency or grammar. The genitive case is to transport us behind and
into the reality of what is represented by these words and to inform us that
these things are now GENOS to those nearby substantives.

Providing for us to realize and appreciate...these were the servants,
characterized by Him...and also very importantly, characterized by the fact
that they had been coming out from the grip of who and what she is. Now
theology would indentify the woman perhaps...but what the main point is here
is that the Greek genitive case tells us that these servants had as their
very classification, Him...their coming out...their coming out of her
grip...that is everything that she was and would like to hold them to. To
me...this changes the focus so dramatically and meaningfully...doesn't it ?
Whereas....semantic categories and prototypes lead away from realities
perceived and represented...moving us into ambiguities and debate. Knowing
that the genitive cased word assigns it's specification to the nearby
substantives removes for me any possibility of ambiguity.

As has been the complaint....it takes a lot of verbage to represent
this in English. But the Greeks didn't have that problem. They could do it
in a flash of a thought. There it was in their mind and their thinking,
instantly. We don't have a vehicle for that yet besides verbage or so it
seems to me.

Finally, I would add....take this principle of approach to any word and
or phrase in the genitive case, it should apply....everytime...everyplace,
else I believe I am mistaken on this subject.

In Aristotle's Politics, V. x. 3-5 when speaking of constitutions
changing from oligarchy to tyranny in Sicily at Leontini....he said ..."EIS
THN PANAITIOU TURANNIDA. The tyranny was not from PANAITIOU...it was not
about PANAITIOU....it was not being done by PANAITIOU...although all those
are surely included. No, Aristotle was bringing to mind in an instant all
of who and what this man had went through and had become and was
characterized by.....and then indicates to his reader, who also understood
the genitive case, that this tyranny would be characterized by Panaetius.
Everything he was would be in that tyranny. No read my lips here. This was
THN PANAITIOU TURANNIDA.